Saturday, April 23, 2022

awesome post by Raelle Kaia, worth posting in full

The Moral Reckoning. by Raelle Kaia. April 23, 2022


To where have we arrived? Has the New Normal truly come and gone?

This spring, many of us find ourselves warily adjusting to the apparent conclusion of two utterly surreal years in human history. We wonder if it is really possible to cast aside the legacy our leaders left us—the mask and vaccine mandates, the terror, division, social paranoia, and isolation—free to resume to the numb, hypnotic trance of life as we once knew it. Shall we continue our march into the soul-sucking banality of digitally mediated virtual life, with ever-increasing surveillance, alienation, and ubiquitous technological overwhelm of our humanity? Are we really free to wake up from the nightmare-dream of covid-induced fear, condemnation, segregation, and authoritarianism?


We wonder whether our fearless leaders have truly released us from our obedience training—from our dutiful imperatives to serve the greater good through compliance and self-sacrifice. It kind of looks that way on the surface, but an eerie feeling hangs in the air. In my old life, I still clung to scraps and shreds of trust in our society’s leadership. Now, in the wake of the calamity wrought through the course of these past two years, my trust has been irreparably broken. Millions share in this journey with me.

As one result of this, I no longer tune into the promulgations of the mainstream media and its corporate press. But through my contacts with others who remain plugged in, I still pick up on some of its prevailing messages and narratives. As such, I’ve gleaned that our leaders have radically altered their instructions to the populace in recent months. Previously, we were all supposed to be obsessed with covid at the exclusion of all else, implored to eliminate the virus by harassing, haranguing, and expelling the unvaccinated and maskless from society. Now it seems we’re supposed to believe that the most important thing is “standing with Ukraine,” vilifying Russia and Russians, and worrying about World War III. Or at least we were for a while. Then it seemed like the thing we were all supposed to care about was Will Smith slapping Chris Rock.

This 1984-style narrative shift has us all confused about whether Eurasia or East Asia is the enemy we’ve always been at war with. We seem to remember it both ways. Meanwhile, behind our muddled confusion, all the foundations of covid tyranny are still lying in place—just waiting to be reactivated. Governments have established their prerogative to abrogate all personal freedoms and human rights any time they declare an emergency. We are now supposed to accept total surveillance, the automation of everything, the end of medical privacy and bodily autonomy, and the unaccountable rule of technocratic corporations, NGOs, and oligarchs. We are supposed to have internalized our new role as obedient soldiers in the fight against (insert cause célèbre here), ready to surrender our speech, our minds, and our critical thinking the moment we receive instructions to do so. We are now supposed to vilify and persecute whatever proffered enemy our masters supply us with whenever the narrative changes.

This is called “getting our freedoms back.” On April 18, I was waiting for a flight at the Tucson Airport when one of the staff announced that the federal mask mandate in airports and airplanes no longer applied, effective immediately. And just like that, almost two years of forcing masks on travelers was gone. One moment, it’s absolutely necessary we do this—the next moment, it makes no difference at all. I wandered around the airport, observing as others gradually got the news and began to show their faces, the hallways still littered with imposing signs about the grave necessity to keep one’s face covered at all times—artifacts of an ancient bygone era that ended 10 minutes earlier.

When I got on the plane, I took note of how many people continued to wear a mask of their own volition. It seemed to be about half the people. I also noted that none of the airplane crew chose to continue wearing masks. In the airports, very few of the airline staff continued to wear masks either. Are people who work for airlines naturally disposed to right-wing, anti-science, white-supremacist, conspiracy-theorizing, anti-mask sentiments? Or is it possible that having existed at the center of this mask controversy for the past two years, airline employees actually looked into the thing on a deeper level than the average person—and in so doing discovered the absurdity of the whole enterprise?

Later, I discovered why the mandate had been lifted. Earlier that day, a federal judge ruled that the mandate had been illegal all along. It seems that as long as someone in authority (or with presumed authority) orders anyone to do anything, most people will just obey as if they had no rights at all. They will never look into the question of whether that authority is illegally derived, or whether the orders are morally grounded or rationally sound. Instead, most people will act as if they were subjects of a monarch or a dictator rather than citizens with inalienable rights, governed by representatives with limited powers. They will assume it’s someone else’s job to tell them whether they have to stop following the authority’s dictates or whether they have to continue. They will defer to another authority to tell them which authority they must obey. All this time—even though half of airline travelers and almost all airline staff did not believe in wearing masks—they all collectively went along with illegally promulgated mask orders until the moment they were told not to anymore.

What else will people do as long as they are ordered to? What else have people already done? This is the moral reckoning that faces us as people.


Segregation and Discrimination

During the nightmare of covid governance, the populace has been strongly encouraged to practice segregation and discrimination. Millions enthusiastically answered the call in their private lives as well as public lives. Millions more went along with the segregation and discrimination without enthusiasm, but simply because they were told to.

When I was a child in the ‘80s, I learned about how in the bad old days of America, black people were banned from all kinds of jobs, were banned from restaurants, hotels, and other public venues, were segregated from white people regarding the neighborhoods they could live in, the section of the bus they sat in, the schools they attended, and even the swimming pools and water fountains they drank from. This system was called Jim Crow. I also learned that this was still going in in South Africa, but it was called Apartheid there. I was told that these things were wrong, but I also didn’t need to be told that. I immediately identified them as wrong as soon as they were described to me.

“You don’t need to explain to me what Jim Crow was or what Apartheid was,” I hear you say. “I know what those things were. I know they were wrong.”

Well, that’s a relief. Because it seems as if a lot of people either don’t know what those things were—or they do know, but they don’t realize they were wrong. How else could so many people have supported the discrimination and segregation regime of vaccine passports and mandates? These regimes also segregate and discriminate against a targeted class of people, but apply even stronger restrictions than Jim Crow or Apartheid did. Instead banning the targeted people from some jobs, some commercial establishments, and some schools, they were (in many places) banned from all jobs, all commercial establishments, all schools, and all public places. Instead of being forced to occupy the back of the bus, they were banished from the bus entirely.

The justification seems to be as follows: “Jim Crow and Apartheid were only wrong because those systems targeted the incorrect people to be stripped of their humanity, rights, and equality under the law. It’s actually good to institute segregation and discrimination regimes as long as the correct people are targeted to lose all their rights and humanity—and as long as it’s for an important enough reason.

This is different from the moral lesson I took away from Jim Crow and Apartheid. The lesson I learned was that it is always wrong to discriminate against people, and that it is always wrong to segregate society. It doesn’t matter how good your reasons are, or how good you think your reasons are. It’s wrong to treat human beings this way, no matter who they are, no matter how superior one believes oneself to be, no matter how inferior or dangerous the targeted group is believed to be.

Perhaps I’m the one who’s mistaken here. Perhaps I’m the one who is morally undeveloped. Perhaps I’m the one who has not realized that although we used to believe discrimination and segregation were always wrong—were always a gross violation of human rights and dignity—we know better now. We received a new memo: it teaches us that from now on, segregation and discrimination are not only permissible, but are good things. Our leaders will inform us when it is appropriate to do so, and who the new targeted classes of people are to be stripped of human considerations. My moral failing was in questioning this memo rather than abandoning my own moral sense when instructed to do so by the powerful.

Perhaps I’m the one who dropped the moral ball here, but I really don’t think so. I think we had it right before. In fact, I’m quite confident that the wrongness, dare I say the evils, of segregation and discrimination are as reprehensible today as they ever were in the past. I’m quite confident there is no correct group to discriminate against or segregate from society. There is no correct group to strip of basic human rights as a consequence of belonging to that group.

As society regains its (relative) sobriety, the depth and gravity of the moral crimes committed in the name of fighting covid will become increasingly apparent. The moral bankruptcy of leaders across the world will become evident, and the moral weight that adheres to those who followed them will be felt. Some will come to recognize their support for systems of segregation and discrimination after years of believing they had just been “doing what’s right.” They will look at their old Black Lives Matter signs lying in their closets and will start to ask themselves “Who am I really? What have I become? How did this happen?” Others will come to recognize that they are willing to support (or at least go along with) any atrocity, any societal crime, as long as it enjoys popular approval and the plaudits of our brave leadership class. It will be someone else’s responsibility—someone wielding power—to tell them what is right and wrong.

Jobs lost. Careers ended. Families riven. Homes and livelihoods shattered. Friendships destroyed. Hearts broken. Humanity divided. These are some of the consequences of the vaccine segregation and discrimination regime that thankfully seems to have receded, gradually passing into the annals of history as a moral stain on the human conscience of the 2020s. But no problem, right? There was never anything to worry about. It was always safe to do nothing and say nothing in protest of what was happening. It was always inevitable that other people would resist these measures and prevent them from becoming permanent.

Except it wasn’t inevitable. These measures would have become permanent if no one had resisted them—if there hadn’t been protests around the world, week after week, month after month—protests like that of the Canadian trucker convoy. We owe it to those truckers and other protestors whose very bank accounts were frozen by the Canadian government for the crime of opposing official state policies of segregation and discrimination. We owe it to them, and to everyone the world over who saw what was happening and said a word against it, lifted a sign or a voice in protest, donated a dollar to resistance movements, or refused to comply with an immoral mandate. We owe it to them for sparing us the horror of plumbing the depths of humanity’s moral weakness and vacant conscience—spared from witnessing how far human beings of the ‘20s are willing to be led down the path of moral atrocity.


No Reckoning for the Leadership

Most will not wish to invite a moral reckoning regarding these matters. It doesn’t feel great. And if no one is forcing a moral reckoning to occur, it’s only natural to push that reckoning aside and retreat into denial and amnesia. If our brave leaders implore us to forget what was done in the name of fighting covid, to let it all flutter down the memory hole, why not permit ourselves to do so? Didn’t we allow ourselves to be led by them without question? Didn’t we trust them when they assured us that anyone who questioned their policies, their reasoning, their morality, or their scientific assertions should be censored, silenced, and ignored? Why not trust them again when they assure us that no moral crimes were committed—that no lies or deceptions occurred, only mistakes—that we can continue to trust them in silencing and stripping rights from their enemies? Why not do so? Why have a moral reckoning when the corrupt leaders of society are willing to give you a free pass? It’s an all-around good deal: no moral reckoning for them, and no moral reckoning for us either.

Among the most astonishing examples of memory-hole denialism the general public seems willing to offer these leaders is in regards to the origins and existence of covid and SarsCov2 itself. Do you remember how they self-righteously proclaimed back in March 2020 (and for the next year) that SarsCov2 had a natural origin, that it couldn’t possibly have originated in a bioweapons research lab? Do you remember how they censored and deplatformed anyone who insisted that a laboratory origin made sense, or that evidence pointed to this as a reality? Do you remember how Dr. Fauci and others denied having funded the gain-of-function research that resulted in the creation of SarsCov2 in American and Chinese laboratories? Do you remember how the funding for this research was found to have originated in DARPA, the technological development arm of the Pentagon? Do you remember how the government and the media quietly retracted everything they said about the natural origin pangolin/bat/wet market mythology they had invented from whole cloth and foisted upon the public? Do you remember how our corporate press eventually admitted that SarsCov2 was “probably” an artificially created chimeric virus? One that would never have existed but for the illegal and immoral bioweapons research of the US and Chinese governments?

It doesn’t seem that anyone remembers these things aside from me and a few other disreputable troublemakers who can’t just let bygones be bygones. We can’t seem to accept that part of the price of having governments is that highly contagious bioweapons are going to be created by them and released from time to time. We can’t just accept that when our hapless governments create and release these microscopic frankenviruses, we will all be duty-bound to allow those same governments to strip our rights away from us, to institute immoral segregation and discrimination regimes, and to issue illegal mandates in order to “win the fight” against the atrocious bioweapons they were responsible for creating and unleashing on us in the first place.

“Let’s not get crazy,” I hear you say, speaking with the voice of kind, gentle, wise reason. “Let’s have compassion for our brave leaders in the military and government, and for their courageous talking puppet heads in the corporate press. You can’t possibly be saying they would release such a virus on purpose! It was just an accident! It could happen to the best of us.”

Does it matter if it was on purpose or an accident? They created it on purpose. They violated international treaties on bioweapons in doing so on purpose. They lied about doing so on purpose. I don’t care if they released it on purpose or if it was just an accident. I demand accountability. Every citizen in the world ought to demand accountability. Where is the reckoning for our morally reprehensible leadership class? It’s nowhere to be found. Even among those of us who have protested all of these covid measures and the long-term technocratic agenda behind them—there is little interest in a moral accounting for the creation and release of SarsCov2, nor for the lies about doing so. It’s as if both supporters and opponents of unaccountable government and military criminality have just resigned themselves to this as the inevitable state of affairs. Of course we’re going to have criminal governments that create bioweapons with no other purpose than infecting and harming as many human beings as their mad scientists can figure out how to achieve. The only question is whether or not to allow those governments to impose authoritarian public health regimes on the populace after their bioweapons are unleashed on them.

We ought to have Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Peter Daszak, Tony Fauci, Xi Jinping—and anyone else who had any part or responsibility in this happening—on trial and under oath. They ought to be giving us the names of the scientists, politicians, financiers, officials, generals, and journalists who had a hand in creating this damned thing or covering it up. Head should roll (figuratively of course). If all those who are guilty don’t go to jail, they should at least be removed from their positions of power. There should be consequences for this kind of crime. Any of these amoral leaders who have us all by the balls in this world ought to think twice before afflicting the planet with their reckless science experiments in the future. They won’t think even once about it if there are never consequences; they’ll just keep making more of these diseases. And it seems almost certain there will be zero consequences for these people or for those who follow in their footsteps in the years to come. Our leaders have a blank check to do whatever they want to us and the world because the people of that world are suffering from collective amnesia, denial, and moral resignation.

When one truly stops to consider this issue, the situation is utterly abhorrent. Billions around the world have been panicked and terrorized by their fear of this virus for two years. Some have lost their lives to it. And yet there is no public discussion about the fact that these bioweapons programs exist, no questioning about whether they should exist, no scrutiny regarding who has responsibility for oversight of these programs, no scrutiny of safety procedures, no risk evaluations of the programs themselves, no discussion of accountability for those who lied about these programs, no demands for those responsible for SarsCov2 to be affirmatively identified and removed from power. Nothing. Nothing but the deafening silence of a terrorized, demoralized populace that has come to expect that their governments will spend years creating viruses designed to harm human beings, infect the world with such viruses once created, lie about doing so, and then impose draconian lockdowns and mandates on the afflicted populace, along with ubiquitous propaganda and censorship campaigns to control public perception and protect the criminals responsible for it. All of this is accepted as a matter of course.

We are living in a moral vacuum—a dreamspell of hypnosis, denial, and programmable reactivity. The public has been trained to export their moral agency to the institutional leaders of government, science, medicine, academia, business, and the mass media. The public has been instructed that the way to be a good person is to obey whatever rules and commands are promulgated by these leaders—to leave the moral reasoning to them. It’s no wonder the public does not demand a moral reckoning. Once the abject lack of any recognizable moral sense is clearly revealed and acknowledged among this leadership class, the people would no longer be able to abdicate their own moral reasoning to them—they would be forced to engage in this reasoning themselves, to assume personal responsibility for it—and this would bring up a whole host of further moral reckonings.


The Moral Consequences of Medical Malfeasance

There is much more to reckon with. At the time of this writing, in April 2022, large numbers of people still have no idea at all that the covid vaccines have caused high numbers of deaths and injury. Most Americans have no idea what VAERS (the vaccine adverse event reporting system) is; they have no idea that the CDC runs this database to catalog vaccine deaths and injuries. They have no idea that over 25,000 American deaths and 1,000,000 injuries from the covid vaccines have already been catalogued in this database, nor do they suspect that these deaths and injuries may be vastly underreported. Please consult prior articles of mine for information and external links that will confirm these facts—that is, if you really want to know. The wealth of links and resources I provided in How to Inform Oneself While Living Under a Censorship Regime will be more than adequate as a starting place.

Most people likewise have no idea that numerous studies have demonstrated time and time again that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D3, among other covid treatment and preventative protocols have stellar efficacy and safety records. They have no idea that in countries around the world where these medications and protocols were employed, cases of covid and deaths from the disease plummeted to very low levels. They have no idea that these treatments were deliberately suppressed by Western governments, and by their institutional and media leaders, in order to pave the way for the covid vaccines as the only accepted remedy. They have no idea that officially sanctioned hospital treatments of ventilators and Remdesivir have resulted in thousands of needless deaths rather than saving lives. They have no conception of the hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths these policies have wrought across the world, or the millions of injuries.

In most cases, when paragraphs like the ones I’ve written above somehow sneak through the censorship dragnet and enter the eyes of a reader who still trusts and obeys the institutional powers that shape our perception, the words and meaning they convey will never register. The dutiful reader has already been informed that any negative information about covid vaccines and any positive information about other treatments are all to be considered dangerous misinformation. This information is to be considered so dangerous and so insidious it should never be examined to determine whether it might actually be true, other than by clicking on a spurious debunking blurb from a self-appointed “fact-checker.” Misinformation, you see, is so powerful, and so cleverly constructed that anyone who actually engages with it is bound to be deceived into believing it is actually true. The actual truth has no chance to prevail in the light of day when challenged by covid misinformation, probably created by Russian assets to turn the minds of pliant Westerners into mishmash and mush.

That’s what happened to me, I’m afraid. You see, I’m one of those people who trusts my own ability to discern truth and logic more than I trust established authorities to decide for me what is true and what I should believe

I should have known that these elite authorities are the only people in the world who have the mental power and acuity required to unweave the mind-altering deceptions promulgated by Putin and other enemies of decency. As a result, I listened to both sides of every dispute, I reviewed the evidence cited on every side, I considered the critiques and counter-critiques offered in all directions, I applied reasoning, logic, and context, informed by values and moral principles—and became hopelessly transformed into a deranged QAnon, Trump loving, right-wing fanatic and Putin puppet. My feeble mind proved too weak for their dastardly manipulations.

Or did it? If the above narrative about my brainwashing (and that of millions of others) is losing credibility in your mind, dear reader, perhaps you might consider the alternative—that I, like millions of others, have arrived at these views because evidence, logic, and reason support these views. And if that is true, it means our leaders have abused their power in unconscionable ways—and their moral reckoning awaits.


Coming to Terms with Responsibility

It’s quite understandable that most people would choose to continue believing the prevailing narrative of the institutional leaders, rather than come to terms with the moral consequences of what has been done. The gravity of the harm inflicted on the people of the world is truly staggering, especially since they recruited all of us to be willing (but unwitting) accomplices. Like good soldiers, we were supposed to do our part. We were supposed to sacrifice, follow orders, remain faithful and loyal, and harm the enemies selected for us by our generals. We were supposed to trust—and we were promised that we could contribute to the greater good by doing so. The noblest instincts of care and compassion for humanity were activated in the people of the world and then callously subverted and betrayed. This has enriched and empowered the predator class who issued our orders and grievously harmed millions throughout the world.

Let us summarize some of the harms:

1. Creating and (intentionally or not) releasing a highly contagious bioweapon on the people of the world—then lying about having done that.

2. Deceiving the public regarding the nature of the harms and dangers of the bioweapon (including exaggerating these harms to instill greater levels of terror and justify stricter lockdowns and mandates).

3. Deceiving the public into rejecting safe and effective covid treatments already available at the time the bioweapon was released.

4. Preventing the public from accessing these treatments, resulting in untold thousands of preventable deaths and injuries.

5. Using lockdowns to psychologically terrorize the people of the world, devastate world economic systems, seize power, transfer wealth upwards, and induce unquestioning obedience to authority.

6. Disrupting food security and access to medical care for millions through these lockdowns, causing uncounted thousands of deaths.

7. Afflicting millions with psychological distress through imposed isolation, job loss, and business closures, with uncounted thousands of additional deaths as a result.

8. Forcing masks on people (through more deception), which impaired health through lack of fresh air, disrupted social connections, turned people against one another, and psychologically abused them further.

9. Promoting dangerous and ineffective vaccines that did almost nothing to protect people from covid while exposing them to risk of injury and death, killing or maiming many thousands in the process.

10. Imposing a censorship regime to stifle knowledge, restrict access to the truth, and shield the powerful from all criticisms and accountability.

11. Introducing societal systems of discrimination and segregation to separate people from their rights, their dignity, and their humanity.


None of these measures did anything to prevent the spread of covid. None of these measures were capable of stopping the spread of SarsCov2, let alone eliminate it. Yet at the time of implementation, those who critiqued or even questioned the measures were met with bile and opprobrium. Consider the harm that could have been prevented if critiques had been permitted. Consider the lives that could have been saved if not for the self-righteous surety that our institutional leaders could never lead us astray—and if not for the willingness to act on that misplaced surety. The moral reckoning beckons.

The only measure that could have spared the world from SarsCov2 would have been to refrain from creating it in the first place. Since it is not possible to go back in time and prevent global military biotech interests from creating SarsCov2, the only measure left to us—the only measure that makes sense—is to demand accountability and consequences for those who did so. This, at least, may prevent the creation and release of new bioweapons in the future. The measure we need, and the one that is not happening, is that of a moral reckoning.

Worse than all the harms listed above are the harms that have been done to the children of the world. As adults, we can be held responsible for ourselves and our actions, even though most of us have abdicated that responsibility to leaders in government, media, and industry. But our children have no choice but to rely on us for guidance and provision of safety. They have no choice but to trust us, and that trust has been deeply betrayed. Our children have been psychologically terrorized as well. They have been forced into masks at school that distort their sense of their own humanity, warp their social relationships, and humiliate them into obedience training while stifling their breath and access to fresh air. They are left utterly confused about questions of risk, health, and safety. Moreover, millions of children have received covid vaccines they do not need (and which do very little to protect against covid anyway), bearing almost zero risk from covid at that age. Thousands of these children have been injured or killed as a result.

In particular, the potential long-term damage done to the immune systems of millions of children and adults by these vaccines represent another massive harm, the scope of which still remains to be seen.


A River in Egypt

When it comes to the harms caused by these vaccines, we are all encouraged, even implored, to deny any possibility of the harm they have caused. Denial is the coin of the realm in our global technocratic biohacking medical regime. We are required to believe that synthetic toxins in our food, water, air, and medicine cannot possibly be harming us. We are required to believe that DNA and RNA modification imbedded in our food and vaccines could not possibly harm the natural immune function of our bodies. All over the world, people discover themselves to be suffering from mysterious bouts of chronic fatigue, inflammation, malaise, allergies, and digestive disorders. We discover ourselves to be suffering from neurological conditions and autoimmune disorders with no understanding of their origin. We are told that such conditions must be due to our own faulty genetics, that they occur spontaneously. We are told to ignore the explosive rate of growth in these conditions over the past 30 years as our bodies have become bombarded with glyphocate, GMO foods, EMF radiation, and a vastly expanded childhood vaccine schedule.

To understand the role of this denial, consider a lens on two different worlds.

In World A, we view masked children at school with appreciation. We are thankful for this precaution to guard their safety. As parents, we dutifully learn the steps to take from our trusted leaders to provide for our children and keep them safe from harm so they can grow and flourish. We conscientiously ensure they receive every recommended vaccine at the scheduled time throughout their lives to protect them from disease, and we get them vaccinated and boosted with covid shots as soon as we’re able, adding a further layer of protection, love and care. Our children’s autism, ADHD, allergies, immune disorders, and other chronic health conditions are all the consequence of genetic circumstance. When our children receive these diagnoses, we lovingly provide them with recommended pharmaceutical interventions to support them as best we can. We are thankful to live in a world of advanced medical science and trusted authorities so our children are able to receive treatment for these conditions and stay safe from infectious disease.

In World B, on the other hand, we view masked children at school as victims of psychological child abuse, forced to cover their faces in service to a series of lies, training them to view their own breath as a threat to themselves and others, obscuring the unique and precious humanity expressed by their beautiful faces, instilling them with fear, shame, and conformity, arresting their spirits. We are wracked with guilt and doubt, wondering if the food we fed them, or the vaccines they received at our insistence were responsible for their immune, neurological and allergic conditions. We see a medical-state-industrial establishment that refuses to answer our questions about these pharmaceuticals, refuses to acknowledge or engage with the evidence we’ve found of the risks they pose to our children’s health. We see this establishment with its mask and vaccine mandates, conveying one uniform message: your body is not your own, you are not allowed to question, you do not deserve honest or thorough answers—your only duty is to obey, and to place your health and body, and the health and body of your child, wholly in the hands of a faceless, profit-driven bureaucracy that views human beings as numbers. And your duty is to socialize your children to do the same when they come of age.

It’s thoroughly clear why most parents would choose to live in World A, given the option. And it’s so easy to do. All that’s required is to trust authority and leave the decision-making to them. There is one more requirement: one must never look into the perspective that informs the parents who live in World B. One must never honestly engage in the research and evidence that supports it. One must never listen to the stories of parents with vaccine-injured children, or to those children themselves, or to the doctors who have studied the issue. One must simply look the other way. Just look the other way.

I’ve never met someone who honestly looked into the perspective of World B in good faith and came away from it still living in World A

One does not always emerge with total confidence regarding what’s true after engaging in World B—there may be questions about some, but not all vaccines; some, but not all pharmaceuticals; some, but not all synthetic foods; some, but not all covid restrictions. But however one emerges, there will be grave doubts about the tenets of World A. There will be deep concerns and distrust regarding the ways that these doubts are forbidden to talk about and are never adequately answered by the keepers of the World A reality. The profound moral implications of refusing to bring these concerns to light will cut deep to the bone.


The Crux of the Moral Reckoning

At the heart of this entire dynamic lies a social contract that props up the World A narrative and forbids a moral reckoning. Under the terms of this contract, we, the good citizens, are perpetually kept in a state of childhood. We are not responsible moral agents. Our leaders and institutions assume that responsibility for us. They remain forever our parents. Father knows best. There can be no moral reckoning, because we are not morally responsible. It is therefore unthinkable to attempt to hold our parents morally responsible. We implicitly trust that they are good parents, not abusive parents. We train our children to regard them the same way. As child-parents to our own children, our job is to successfully condition our children to remain moral children forever, as we have. They, and we, are to be socialized as respectful, obedient, and cooperative. We are not to become self-responsible as full adults with moral agency. Our responsibility is to be good children: to listen attentively for our instructions and carry them out to the letter. Our entire school system is designed to produce adult children of this character.

We live in a complex world with innumerable demands on our time, energy, and thought. The social contract acknowledges this and assures us the only possible way such a world can function is by accepting our roles as children, obedient to the institutional parents. We have never been prepared for adulthood. Our entire conditioning has forcefully dissuaded us from assuming the role of a self-responsible moral agent. We have never been prepared for sovereignty. It’s completely understandable that stepping into ourselves fully in this way seems impossible and absurd.

And yet, for those of us who have discovered ourselves to be living in World B, assuming our moral responsibility and sovereignty is the only possible response, given the realities of our world. Our institutional parents are not wise; they are not loving; they are not truthful. They are abusive. They are immoral. And from this perspective, we are able to recognize that the parent/child dynamic of the social contract we’ve been offered could never have led to a different result. The contract has been shattered, trust has been betrayed, and no leader can arise to restore morality to the system. A system of leaders and children can never be moral. This is because children cannot hold adults responsible. Only sovereign moral agents can hold another moral agent responsible. Only adults are equipped to experience a moral reckoning, or to deliver the reckoning to others. Absent these adults, only the unscrupulous and corrupt are able to achieve leadership and maintain power.

It is not our destiny to remain perpetual children. This cannot be the purpose or proper outcome for the life of a human being. Our moral reckoning must begin with ourselves, and it must begin by assuming responsibility for ourselves, our beliefs, our actions, and our values. We may not be prepared for adulthood. It may come as a shock to discover that although we have held jobs, paid bills, and raised children, we did not become adults by doing so. There is no need for shame in this. There is no need for condemnation or defensiveness. These are the tools used to cow and condition children into obedience and collapse. It is time to set these tools aside; they have no use in our moral reckoning. All that is needed is to assume self-responsibility as a moral agent from this moment forward.

Two years to flatten the curve has brought many of us to this reckoning. Since the summer of 2020, I’ve been writing articles about our collective hypnosis, seeking ways to raise consciousness on these issues, to release our minds from the grips of our morally bankrupt leaders and institutions. The moral awakening must arise from the people themselves. Humanity has reached a crisis point in its spiritual evolution. We are called to reclaim our sovereignty as individuals and remake our societal collective in alignment with that principle. Failure to do so will perpetuate our arrested development. We will remain helpless, disempowered children, ruled over by leaders who are children themselves. The technocratic leadership class has vacated its own moral agency as well, you see. As such, they are no more adults than we. They defer to the principles of the machine, of power for the sake of control—spiritual oblivion for the sake of illusory order.

Our moral rebirth will require an understanding of spiritual principles and truths. It will require a deeper knowledge of our own psyches. We are called upon to confront our shadows, reclaim our exiled parts, and bring daylight to bear on disturbing truths. My future articles will increasingly be written in service of this calling. Evidence already abounds of the moral failings present in our leadership and institutions—of their lies, deceptions, and power grabs. But such evidence can find no purchase among hearts and minds closed to their own moral agency. The systems of containment that perpetuate our prolonged childhood must be identified and dissolved. In casting aside moral abdication through deference to authority, we must rediscover ourselves and reclaim our self-respect, dignity, and responsibility. We must become the spiritually aware adults we truly are.

A New Earth awaits. Join us.

Thursday, April 7, 2022

IPCC WGIII (posted April 7; updated April 10)

Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

The Working Group III report provides an updated global assessment of climate change mitigation progress and pledges, and examines the sources of global emissions. It explains developments in emission reduction and mitigation efforts, assessing the impact of national climate pledges in relation to long-term emissions goals.


'It is time to stop burning our planet'. The Ecologist. Apr.7, 2022.

.... "We used to chant “1.5, we might survive” - 1.5 was already a compromise for frontline communities suffering the worst climate impacts. The IPCC’s WGII climate scientists told us only last month that breaching this guard-rail, even temporarily, could push us over a series of tipping points that would lead to uncontrollable warming.

"It would be grossly negligent for economists to ignore those warnings and propose inequitable mitigation plans that allow for an overshoot, as is now on the table with this new report."


Shortcomings of IPCC AR6 WGIII - Mitigation of Climate Change. Arctic News. Apr. 5, 2022.



********** added April 10 **********

 The Age of Climate Limits. Albert Bates. Apr. 10, 2022.

"Science has given us a three year deadline to end growth as we know it."

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) consists of contributions from each of the three IPCC Working Groups and a Synthesis Report, which integrates all the reports produced in the 10-year cycle. While “net-zero by 2050” is a slogan that gives everyone permission to slack off, the latest and final working group report released this week puts the challenge into sharper focus: carbon emissions must peak by 2025. We are three and one half years from the End of Growth. We then enter the long awaited Age of Limits. Will we do it? Former UNFCCC President Christiana Figueres sounds like she is scolding an unruly teenager:
I’m lacking words for this…. What is suicidal is our inability to take the decisions and enact the behavioral changes that we perfectly well can in order to align our planet with the Paris Agreement. That’s the problem. There is nothing new that any report can tell us about what we should be doing. The gap that we identified years ago is not closing; in fact, it’s enlarging. That’s the news. It’s tragic.

Scornful daddy António Guterres, UN secretary-general, said the kid was a “file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world.”

Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.

........

If Covid taught us anything, it was that the status quo is a frail construct. It can vanish in an instant, or at least over the course of a few weeks. This is what the people in Ukraine witnessed, at least one by a hail of machine gun fire as he bicycled to the grocery. It is what happened to those in Lismore and Byron Bay who saw their homes rain bombed underwater to the rooftops for the second time in a month, or to those who watched their lifetime possessions vanish in wildfires of scale and speed no one had imagined possible. The shock of sudden change is how a two-year (and soon to be longer) pandemic convinced so many to leave their professional careers and switch to a different life path rather than go back to what they had been doing before. We have been shaken from dreary normalcy and been made aware of how precarious the world of our making has become, and how we could be spending our days in more meaningful pursuits.

Many think the solution to climate change is public education. I don’t. I think people know. Most just don’t want to admit it, or do anything, unless they have to.

.....

The report could not have set the agenda any better.

If humanity still needs a climate strategy, I think these thousand scientists, finally reaching their difficult 150-hour marathon consensus in the early hours of Monday morning, provided it. Our effort must address the existential issue of our era: changing our cultural habits and deciding to live as if there will still be a tomorrow.

......

We could stop there, but if you are a glutton for punishment there is more. Here are some things the IPCC got wrong:

  • “Unabated” coal must be “completely” phased out by 2050. The “U” word is inserted at the insistence of coal producers (Joe Manchin, N. Modi, V. Putin) who still believe “clean coal” is a real thing. Instead, all coal should be phased out by 2025.
  • IPCC still forecasts that economic growth, coming on the back of ever growing energy supply, will continue into the indefinite future. There is little recognition of the caloric return of different energy types, EROIE, or rare mineral depletion — technocornucopian bias.
  • The Carbon Budget. Going all the way back to AR-1, IPCC has followed the chimera of a carbon budget that would allow underdeveloping countries (India, Nigeria, etc) to make up for the lost ground stolen by the overdeveloped nations in the 19th century by continuing to emit — and grow emissions annually — long after everyone else is forced to curtail. Originally the budget was 450 ppm, but when it was realized that would take us to 3 to 5 degrees warming, it was cut to 350, and then replaced with the 2 degree goal. This report says “a significant but very small carbon budget remains” to limit warming to 1.5°. It says the path to limit warming to 1.5° is extremely narrow, therefore this small budget should be used only by hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like steel mills, maritime shipping and airlines. This is preposterous! Even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, Earth would continue to warm. The budget concept is based on the flawed premise that if India were given 20 more years of Russian coal and gas every Indian will be living like a Swede or Dane does today, driving a Tesla and wintering in Ibiza. This is dangerous nonsense and should have been discarded long ago. We are already over budget and building huge stockpiles of atmospheric of carbon that must be removed at unknowable expense.
  • Natural climate solutions — biochar, carbon farming, agroforestry, land use changes and the like — are consistently undervalued (all can be cost negative, ie: profitable, if managed in a regenerative fashion) and excluded from the predictive models — while high tech solutions like BECCS, DACCS, and CCU are overvalued (they will cost trillions and rely on unremitting energy inputs) but included in the predictive models. The former consistently surprise by overperforming expectations. The latter consistently disappoint. And yet the IPCC refuses to admit it is betting its whole inheritance on the wrong horse.
  • For instance, while the value of biochar for Carbon Dioxide Removal has been elevated from 1.4 GtCO2/y potential to 6.6 GtCO2/y, that number is almost entirely based upon soil applications, with a slight nod to animal feed and water filtration. As I pointed out in my formal critique a year ago when the IPCC invited me to be a reviewer, the non-agricultural applications for biochar have 10x the drawdown potential, profitability and speed of deployment. I offered BURN and its hundreds of current references, but that was not mentioned. Paul Hawkens’ Drawdown (2017) was referenced but his more accurate biochar recalculation in Regeneration (2020) was overlooked.
  • A word search on “pets,” “dogs,” “cats,” and “ornamental fish” came up blank. The report estimates with high confidence that shifts to sustainable healthy diets have a “technical potential” to reduce emissions by 3.6 GtCO2e, with a range of 0.5 to 8 GtCO2e but says nothing about the carbon footprint of pets and pet food. Big blind spot. Creature comfort seems to be a taboo subject.
  • IPCC forecasts nuclear will expand 70% above 2019 by 2030 and 305% by 2050. Besides being economic fantasy, this demonstrates the callous willingness of engineers to burn future children to produce light, heat, and steam. It is unconscionable.
Here is what they got right:
  • Watching the breathtaking speed of the solar and wind build-out and price drop since the last report, the IPCC admitted it had gotten that wrong: “future energy transitions may occur more quickly than those in the past.”
  • They also admit that nuclear energy and clean coal technology, the darlings of earlier reports, have been “slower than…anticipated.”
  • It is beyond dispute now that reversing climate change will be far less expensive (and futile) than trying to live with it, or trying to tame nuclear fusion.
  • “Decommissioning and reduced utilization of existing fossil fuel installations in the power sector as well as cancellation of new installations are required to align future CO2 emissions from the power sector with projections in these pathways.” Stranded investment must happen. Live with it, Joe Manchin, Marsha Blackburn and Charles Koch.
  • “Bioenergy and BECCS are found to pose a risk to biodiversity, water, soil, air quality, resilience, livelihoods and food security.”
  • Global CO2 emissions must peak “at the latest before 2025” and then fall to 48% below 2019 levels by 2030, then 84% below by 2050.
  • The central impediment is not lack of solutions but human behavior, much of which is hard wired. What could expedite shifts would be “novel narratives” in the media and entertainment industry to “help to break away from the established values, discourses and the status quo.” For example: portray plant-based diets as healthy and natural; portray climate resisters as normal and climate polluters as regressive or evil (e.g.: Icelandic film: Woman at War).
  • For the first time, there is a chapter on “demand-side,” including diets and consumption patterns. Strapline: sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets for all are within reach. Healthy habitats — rural, periurban, or urban — are within reach. There is a better world waiting.